Immaculate conception?

[Binyamin Dissen]

http://news.yahoo.com/birth-anteater-conn-zoo-staff-puzzled-124718912.html

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

[D.F. Manno]

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

> http://news.yahoo.com/birth-anteater-conn-zoo-staff-puzzled-124718912.html

The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with
the alleged virgin birth of Christ. It holds that Mary was conceived
without original sin and that from conception she was blessed with the
grace that is normally conferred only upon baptism.
--
D.F. Manno

[John Dean]

"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:949663248390662826.4...@news.albasani.net...

But I think we can forgive Binny for not knowing that.

--
John Dean

[Kevin]

Can we also forgive me for making snarky, incorrectly grounded
comments about Jewish religious ideas? I mean, if I decide to start
doing so.

[Pastime]

Personally, I think it ought to be open season on all religious ideas.
If someone holds their superstitions "sacred", it's their problem, not
ours, when those superstitions are so hilarious.
--
John

[bill van]

In article <hthip8ddjde7aghua...@4ax.com>,

As an atheist for the last 50 years or so, I find that an unacceptably
arrogant position. Many people are comforted by their religious beliefs
and as long they don't interfere with other people's lives, they should
be respected. Freedom of religion includes freedom from other people
ridiculing your beliefs.

You are free to hold your own set of beliefs and there is nothing wrong
with discussing them or others' in a reasonable context, but ridiculing
someone's religion comes perilously close to religious persecution, in
my view.

bill

[D.F. Manno]

In article <billvan-3B63B7...@news.shawcable.net>,
bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> Pastime <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I think it ought to be open season on all religious ideas.
> > If someone holds their superstitions "sacred", it's their problem, not
> > ours, when those superstitions are so hilarious.
>
> As an atheist for the last 50 years or so, I find that an unacceptably
> arrogant position. Many people are comforted by their religious beliefs
> and as long they don't interfere with other people's lives, they should
> be respected. Freedom of religion includes freedom from other people
> ridiculing your beliefs.
>
> You are free to hold your own set of beliefs and there is nothing wrong
> with discussing them or others' in a reasonable context, but ridiculing
> someone's religion comes perilously close to religious persecution, in
> my view.

So the religionists are allowed to dish it out but shouldn't be made to
take it?

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[Gus]

"bill van" <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:billvan-3B63B7...@news.shawcable.net...

Not accepting evolution and other wacky scientific ideas, does impinge on
others and society. And the hapless children of people that think
irrationality makes the best sense of the World we live in... Ridicule is
only going to make people defensive though, true. But I don't know how you
civilly argue with someone that refuses to listen to Reason, and takes
Reason as enemy of their Faith. And wants to stifle open discussion and
inquiry.

[D.F. Manno]

"John Dean" <john...@FRAGmsn.com> wrote:

> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/birth-anteater-conn-zoo-staff-puzzled-124718912.html
>>
>> The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with
>> the alleged virgin birth of Christ. It holds that Mary was conceived
>> without original sin and that from conception she was blessed with the
>> grace that is normally conferred only upon baptism.
>
> But I think we can forgive Binny for not knowing that.

But he should refrain from writing of things he knows not.
--
D.F. Manno

[bill van]

In article <dfmanno-8C5054...@news.albasani.net>,

They are in a parallel position to what I was opposing above: They are
intolerant of the views of others.

Given that they have opened the topic by either berating the beliefs of
others or trying to impose their own, they qualify under the "reasonable
context" I mentioned above and are open to being contested, same as any
missionary who knocks on your door.

What I was opposing was "open season on all religious ideas". People who
are not bothering anyone else about their religion should be left free
to believe what they please.

bill

[Pastime]

Whoa, hang on there, Bill. I'm not at all saying they shouldn't be
"left free to believe what they please". You're twisting what I'm
saying.

No, I'm just reserving the right to laugh at their beliefs when
they're funny. Would you rather we didn't make jokes about
transubstantiation, or the Garden of Eden, or 72 virgins waiting in
Heaven, or reincarnation, or gods with multiple arms, or talking
snakes, or animals two-by-two in an ark? Should those really be above
ridicule?
--
John

[Pastime]

Why, then he'd write nothing at all!

Oh, yes - great idea ...
--
John

[Gus]

"Pastime" <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote in message
news:rrojp850anog58ovf...@4ax.com...

immaculate confection (Tom Waits)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wfamPW3Eaw


Live and Let Live is great, as long as everyone agrees.

[Gus]

"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message
news:6aakp8tpihmhlj76u...@4ax.com...

> Sasquatch, the Lock Ness Monster, Scientology,
> birtherism, ESP, alien abduction, crop circles,
> trickle down economics, left behind, intelligent
> design, penis size enhancement, Ouija boards,
> afterlife, demonic possession, animal rights,
> doomsday predictions, pyramid schemes, Area 51,
> conspiracy theories. Please identify which of
> these beliefs should be above ridicule.
> --
> Tim



Islam... Not a lot of comics out there making jokes about Islam. Or
cartoonists-- that are still alive.

[Pastime]

> Islam... Not a lot of comics out there making jokes about Islam. Or
> cartoonists-- that are still alive.

Is that really true? I call for evidence on this, although I
understand how it's hard to provide evidence for an absence.

Some evidence that Allah is as risible as ever:

http://islam.about.com/od/islamart/tp/comedy.htm
http://www.discoveringislam.org/muslim_comedians.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3796109.stm

and the one I was thinking of primarily:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2003/aug/21/comedy.edinburghfestival20034
<quote>
One particular joke, told three weeks after September 11 in a small
comedy club in Soho, launched what she calls her "slightly scary"
career: "My name is Shazia Mirza, or at least that is what it says on
my pilot's licence." "Everyone in the audience looked at each other,"
she recalls, "seeing if it was all right to laugh - and then they just
erupted."
</quote>

While Muslim comedians do make jokes that aren't about Islam, of
course, I doubt that many avoid the subject.
--
John

[Les Albert]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:57:13 -0800, Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:51 +0100, Pastime
><wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>

>Sasquatch, the Lock Ness Monster, Scientology,
>birtherism, ESP, alien abduction, crop circles,
>trickle down economics, left behind, intelligent
>design, penis size enhancement, Ouija boards,
>afterlife, demonic possession, animal rights,
>doomsday predictions, pyramid schemes, Area 51,
>conspiracy theories. Please identify which of
>these beliefs should be above ridicule.

Ouija boards.

Les

[Greg Goss]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

>You are free to hold your own set of beliefs and there is nothing wrong
>with discussing them or others' in a reasonable context, but ridiculing
>someone's religion comes perilously close to religious persecution, in
>my view.

Religious freedom can get you into some awkward philosophical
positions. I'm offended by how some European countries have treated
the Scientologists, but I'm also offended at how the Scientologists
have treated some of their own adherents. I'm not sure how to
reconcile these two offendednesses.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[bill van]

In article <rrojp850anog58ovf...@4ax.com>,

I took my cue from "it ought to be open season on all religious ideas."
Not much ambiguity there.

>
> No, I'm just reserving the right to laugh at their beliefs when
> they're funny. Would you rather we didn't make jokes about
> transubstantiation, or the Garden of Eden, or 72 virgins waiting in
> Heaven, or reincarnation, or gods with multiple arms, or talking
> snakes, or animals two-by-two in an ark? Should those really be above
> ridicule?

I guess it depends on context and approach. I'm happy to read your
transubstantiation jokes and pass some of them on to my friends. I'm
also good with standup comics who make fun of their own religion, but
perhaps less so with comics who make fun of other people's religions.
You'd have to be really good to hit the right notes. But I wouldn't want
to see you ridiculing my elderly parents, who believed a number of the
things you listed above, or the billions of others who have religious
beliefs but don't use them to justify doing harm or try to impose them
on anyone else.

bill

[Pastime]

No, not much ambiguity, because I explained directly afterwards
exactly what I meant.

> > No, I'm just reserving the right to laugh at their beliefs when
> > they're funny. Would you rather we didn't make jokes about
> > transubstantiation, or the Garden of Eden, or 72 virgins waiting in
> > Heaven, or reincarnation, or gods with multiple arms, or talking
> > snakes, or animals two-by-two in an ark? Should those really be above
> > ridicule?
>
> I guess it depends on context and approach. I'm happy to read your
> transubstantiation jokes and pass some of them on to my friends. I'm
> also good with standup comics who make fun of their own religion, but
> perhaps less so with comics who make fun of other people's religions.
> You'd have to be really good to hit the right notes. But I wouldn't want
> to see you ridiculing my elderly parents, who believed a number of the
> things you listed above, or the billions of others who have religious
> beliefs but don't use them to justify doing harm or try to impose them
> on anyone else.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't know what your elderly
parents' religious beliefs are, so how can I avoid making jokes about
those beliefs? Or do you mean ridiculing them to their face, which
sounds like the kind of thing only a rather nasty person would do?
--
John

[Gus]

"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message

news:86ikp8hic1r8kfvli...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:11:09 +0100, Pastime
> <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote:

>
>>Gus wrote:
>>> Islam... Not a lot of comics out there making jokes about Islam. Or
>>> cartoonists-- that are still alive.
>>
>>Is that really true? I call for evidence on this, although I
>>understand how it's hard to provide evidence for an absence.
>>
>>Some evidence that Allah is as risible as ever:
>>
>>http://islam.about.com/od/islamart/tp/comedy.htm
>>http://www.discoveringislam.org/muslim_comedians.htm
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3796109.stm
>>
>>and the one I was thinking of primarily:
>>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2003/aug/21/comedy.edinburghfestival20034
>><quote>
>>One particular joke, told three weeks after September 11 in a small
>>comedy club in Soho, launched what she calls her "slightly scary"
>>career: "My name is Shazia Mirza, or at least that is what it says on
>>my pilot's licence." "Everyone in the audience looked at each other,"
>>she recalls, "seeing if it was all right to laugh - and then they just
>>erupted."
>></quote>
>>
>>While Muslim comedians do make jokes that aren't about Islam, of
>>course, I doubt that many avoid the subject.
>

> Surprisingly, even South Park, which has a
> reputation to maintain, only made two episodes
> lampooning the prophet and then had to quickly
> edit one and remove the other after receiving
> death threats.
> --
> Tim


A couple South Park episodes were pulled/censored for depicting Muhommed ,
yet they can put on a broadway show called "Book of Mormon", and
air an ep on tv where a kid's parents are killed, chopped up and made into
chili, and served to the parent's kid... Even Bill Maher, who occasionally
says some outlandish and controversial things, doesn't say anything specific
about Islam. Though he is virulently anti-religion. Farthest he goes is to
say he can't say anything (critical of Islam), not even comically.

Maybe I got a skewed perception from the news, but the story about van Gogh
being killed was disturbing, as is the Dutch cartoonist being attacked and
now have 24 hour police protection, and the lady in the US who started
"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" but then disavowing it and having to change
her name and go underground because of serious death threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Murder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Molly_Norris_cartoon

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:01:13 -0400 "Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:

:>"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message

:>A couple South Park episodes were pulled/censored for depicting Muhommed ,

:>yet they can put on a broadway show called "Book of Mormon", and
:>air an ep on tv where a kid's parents are killed, chopped up and made into
:>chili, and served to the parent's kid... Even Bill Maher, who occasionally
:>says some outlandish and controversial things, doesn't say anything specific
:>about Islam. Though he is virulently anti-religion. Farthest he goes is to
:>say he can't say anything (critical of Islam), not even comically.

:>Maybe I got a skewed perception from the news, but the story about van Gogh
:>being killed was disturbing, as is the Dutch cartoonist being attacked and
:>now have 24 hour police protection, and the lady in the US who started
:>"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" but then disavowing it and having to change
:>her name and go underground because of serious death threats.

:>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Murder

:>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Molly_Norris_cartoon

The Leftist created "Islamiphobia" was to protect the only religion they
consider worthy of respect - due to the threat of violence. Of course, if
Xians did the same violence that the Moslems do, the Left would have shut down
"piss christ".

[Greg Goss]

"Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:

>A couple South Park episodes were pulled/censored for depicting Muhommed ,
>yet they can put on a broadway show called "Book of Mormon", and

Supposedly the Broadway show is fairly respectful towards the
religion, unlike the TV episodes where they rendered the history of
the religion laughable.

[BillTurlock]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:09:08 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>"Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>A couple South Park episodes were pulled/censored for depicting Muhommed ,
>>yet they can put on a broadway show called "Book of Mormon", and
>
>Supposedly the Broadway show is fairly respectful towards the
>religion, unlike the TV episodes where they rendered the history of
>the religion laughable.

As a rule, Mormons generally don't assinate.

[Pastime]

I really daren't ask what "assinate" means.
--
John

[Les Albert]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:12:30 +0100, Pastime <wsub...@tznvy.pbz>
wrote:

I think it is a term that has to do with cars; big end:
www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/104421.jpg

Les

[Gus]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:b00ab2...@mid.individual.net...

> "Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>A couple South Park episodes were pulled/censored for depicting Muhommed ,
>>yet they can put on a broadway show called "Book of Mormon", and
>
> Supposedly the Broadway show is fairly respectful towards the
> religion, unlike the TV episodes where they rendered the history of
> the religion laughable.
> --

Are there any religions whose history are not absurd and laughable? Maybe
not Buddhism or Confucianism, but aren't they more of a philosophy than
religion?

My ex lived in Nevada for 20 years and Mormonism is rampant out there, from
the politicians to the boy scouts... She thought the SP was spot on. She's
has a dozen or so books about them and is pretty knowledgeable. The SP
episode IIRC doesn't even make fun of the religion, some new kids comes to
their school who is Mormon and the show simply states straightforwardly the
history of the religion. My understanding is the Broadway show is like that
too?

The creators put most (all?) the shows on a website. "All about the
Mormons":
http://tinyurl.com/6ctbc3t

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons

[Gus]

"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message

news:7cdnp8pqsen4kkbo1...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:09:08 -0600, Greg Goss
> <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>

>>"Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A couple South Park episodes were pulled/censored for depicting Muhommed
>>>,
>>>yet they can put on a broadway show called "Book of Mormon", and
>>
>>Supposedly the Broadway show is fairly respectful towards the
>>religion, unlike the TV episodes where they rendered the history of
>>the religion laughable.
>

> How could anyone portray the history of Mormonism
> as laughable? I mean, how could anyone find humor
> in basing a religion on revelations from God
> reflected off seer stones named Urim and Thurim in
> Joseph Smith's hat?
> --
> Tim


And since only Joe could read them, he *must* have been a special
representative of God.

[BillTurlock]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:12:30 +0100, Pastime <wsub...@tznvy.pbz>
wrote:

Oops, I need another ass in there. And a pruf reeder.

[bill van]

In article <pc7lp81bn9l5ss5mb...@4ax.com>,

What's up there is:

> > > > > > > If someone holds their superstitions "sacred", it's their
> > > > > > > problem, not
> > > > > > > ours, when those superstitions are so hilarious.

which really doesn't soften the message.

>
> > > No, I'm just reserving the right to laugh at their beliefs when
> > > they're funny. Would you rather we didn't make jokes about
> > > transubstantiation, or the Garden of Eden, or 72 virgins waiting in
> > > Heaven, or reincarnation, or gods with multiple arms, or talking
> > > snakes, or animals two-by-two in an ark? Should those really be above
> > > ridicule?
> >
> > I guess it depends on context and approach. I'm happy to read your
> > transubstantiation jokes and pass some of them on to my friends. I'm
> > also good with standup comics who make fun of their own religion, but
> > perhaps less so with comics who make fun of other people's religions.
> > You'd have to be really good to hit the right notes. But I wouldn't want
> > to see you ridiculing my elderly parents, who believed a number of the
> > things you listed above, or the billions of others who have religious
> > beliefs but don't use them to justify doing harm or try to impose them
> > on anyone else.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't know what your elderly
> parents' religious beliefs are, so how can I avoid making jokes about
> those beliefs? Or do you mean ridiculing them to their face, which
> sounds like the kind of thing only a rather nasty person would do?

I've been letting this sit and percolate for a day or so hoping it would
resolve itself in my mind. But it's not working. What I see up there is
a sharp intolerance of people's religious beliefs, and little to no
compassion.

As I indicated, I probably share your outlook with regard to believing
in a deity. But I accept that the majority of the world's population
needs an organized set of ideas/beliefs to follow as a system of
morality, and organized religion to provide a community with which to
interact, do charitable work and get some reinforcement. Granted,
sometimes such communities go wrong and great harm can be done.

But most members of such communities are people like my parents (one's
dead and the other has Alzheimer's, so they're both beyond this debate)
who would have been very, very hurt by having their religion ridiculed.
Your implication that you wouldn't do it to their faces doesn't, for me,
obviate the basic sentiment.

I have felt as you appear to at times in my life. In the right context,
I can rail against religious beliefs, especially those that spawn
intolerance of those who don't agree. But I've grown to accept that most
people need to cling to the supernatural to ground their lives, and that
the vast majority of them use these beliefs to live morally and
productively, and I think that declaring "open season on all religious
ideas" indicates contempt, and a lack of compassion for, your fellow
humans.

bill

[Gus]

"bill van" <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:billvan-6F6F85...@news.shawcable.net...

> I've been letting this sit and percolate for a day or so hoping it would
> resolve itself in my mind. But it's not working. What I see up there is
> a sharp intolerance of people's religious beliefs, and little to no
> compassion.
>
> As I indicated, I probably share your outlook with regard to believing
> in a deity. But I accept that the majority of the world's population
> needs an organized set of ideas/beliefs to follow as a system of
> morality, and organized religion to provide a community with which to
> interact, do charitable work and get some reinforcement. Granted,
> sometimes such communities go wrong and great harm can be done.
>
> But most members of such communities are people like my parents (one's
> dead and the other has Alzheimer's, so they're both beyond this debate)
> who would have been very, very hurt by having their religion ridiculed.
> Your implication that you wouldn't do it to their faces doesn't, for me,
> obviate the basic sentiment.
>
> I have felt as you appear to at times in my life. In the right context,
> I can rail against religious beliefs, especially those that spawn
> intolerance of those who don't agree. But I've grown to accept that most
> people need to cling to the supernatural to ground their lives, and that
> the vast majority of them use these beliefs to live morally and
> productively, and I think that declaring "open season on all religious
> ideas" indicates contempt, and a lack of compassion for, your fellow
> humans.
>
> bill

No one needs a Deity to live morally. And there are plenty of immoral
people that do believe in a Deity... But I agree that ridicule should be
banned, people can get inadvertently hurt. Someone should start a Facebook
page and a hashtag on Twitter promoting the banning of all ridicule. Maybe
do a series of tv spots with celebrities who have been hurt by ridicule, and
know just how much pain it causes. Maybe start a kickstarter campaign to
finance educating people about the horrors of ridicule.

[Pastime]

Except that it's clear I'm not advocating repression, which you
implied by "should be left free to believe what they please". My
position is that people are free to worship whatever they want, just
as people are free to find that funny.

> > > > No, I'm just reserving the right to laugh at their beliefs when
> > > > they're funny. Would you rather we didn't make jokes about
> > > > transubstantiation, or the Garden of Eden, or 72 virgins waiting in
> > > > Heaven, or reincarnation, or gods with multiple arms, or talking
> > > > snakes, or animals two-by-two in an ark? Should those really be above
> > > > ridicule?
> > >
> > > I guess it depends on context and approach. I'm happy to read your
> > > transubstantiation jokes and pass some of them on to my friends. I'm
> > > also good with standup comics who make fun of their own religion, but
> > > perhaps less so with comics who make fun of other people's religions.
> > > You'd have to be really good to hit the right notes. But I wouldn't want
> > > to see you ridiculing my elderly parents, who believed a number of the
> > > things you listed above, or the billions of others who have religious
> > > beliefs but don't use them to justify doing harm or try to impose them
> > > on anyone else.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't know what your elderly
> > parents' religious beliefs are, so how can I avoid making jokes about
> > those beliefs? Or do you mean ridiculing them to their face, which
> > sounds like the kind of thing only a rather nasty person would do?
>
> I've been letting this sit and percolate for a day or so hoping it would
> resolve itself in my mind. But it's not working. What I see up there is
> a sharp intolerance of people's religious beliefs, and little to no
> compassion.

The other day, my daughter and I went into a church (to look at the
interior; neither of us is religious), and I mentioned to her that I
felt a little envy for those who can seek solace in the church.

The doesn't conflict in any way, to my mind, with finding the whole
business amusing.

> As I indicated, I probably share your outlook with regard to believing
> in a deity. But I accept that the majority of the world's population
> needs an organized set of ideas/beliefs to follow as a system of
> morality, and organized religion to provide a community with which to
> interact, do charitable work and get some reinforcement. Granted,
> sometimes such communities go wrong and great harm can be done.
>
> But most members of such communities are people like my parents (one's
> dead and the other has Alzheimer's, so they're both beyond this debate)
> who would have been very, very hurt by having their religion ridiculed.
> Your implication that you wouldn't do it to their faces doesn't, for me,
> obviate the basic sentiment.
>
> I have felt as you appear to at times in my life. In the right context,
> I can rail against religious beliefs, especially those that spawn
> intolerance of those who don't agree. But I've grown to accept that most
> people need to cling to the supernatural to ground their lives, and that
> the vast majority of them use these beliefs to live morally and
> productively, and I think that declaring "open season on all religious
> ideas" indicates contempt, and a lack of compassion for, your fellow
> humans.

And I've undertaken a journey in the opposite direction; it's not the
one-way street from intolerance to enlightened acceptance that you
imply. In my case, from a position of absolute tolerance, even wanting
to be a believer myself, I've "grown to" despair at the hypocrisy and
wilful ignorance that's so often central to religious belief, and
"grown to" recognise the abysmal harm that religion so frequently
causes.

And if you want to believe that I have "a lack of compassion" for "my
fellow humans" on that basis, that's your choice.
--
John

[Gus]

"Pastime" <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote in message

news:obhqp8lc1ko7tgrn8...@4ax.com...

> The other day, my daughter and I went into a church (to look at the
> interior; neither of us is religious), and I mentioned to her that I
> felt a little envy for those who can seek solace in the church.

I'm amazed and awed by music, architecture and paintings. Though I don't
understand how people create it. I have not talent or ambition to be an
artist, but I appreciate the works and those who can create such things even
though a not a member of their community.

> And I've undertaken a journey in the opposite direction; it's not the
> one-way street from intolerance to enlightened acceptance that you
> imply. In my case, from a position of absolute tolerance, even wanting
> to be a believer myself, I've "grown to" despair at the hypocrisy and
> wilful ignorance that's so often central to religious belief, and
> "grown to" recognise the abysmal harm that religion so frequently
> causes.
>
> And if you want to believe that I have "a lack of compassion" for "my
> fellow humans" on that basis, that's your choice.
> --
> John

You come across as a very sincere and compassionate person.

[D.F. Manno]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

>I think that declaring "open season on all religious
> ideas" indicates contempt, and a lack of compassion for, your fellow
> humans.

Now wait a damn minute. The whole idea of freedom of expression is that
it's open season on _all_ ideas. The ideas that can stand up to criticism
are the ones that endure.

You want to exempt religious ideas from that process. Why do they deserve a
free pass?
--
D.F. Manno

[Lesmond]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:00:30 -0700, BillTurlock wrote:

>Oops, I need another ass in there.

Me, too.

--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.

[bill van]

In article
<326888953390973657.8...@news.albasani.net>,

Kindness, compassion, that kind of thing, depending on circumstances.
Yes, you are free to dump on, criticize, ridicule, etc. But sometimes
you don't. Or at least, I don't. And it's not limited to religion.

A take-no-prisoners approach to humans and their beliefs can be cruel.
We can choose not to be cruel, when circumstances allow.

bill

[Pastime]

I'm not advocating being critical of religions all the time, nor to
everyone. My point is that if some facet of a religion is ludicrous -
say, the talking snake in Eden - it's not my problem if I find it
funny. It's not me who believes it, after all.
--
John

[Gus]

"Pastime" <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote in message

news:f7rrp8144a51mkc5q...@4ax.com...

> I'm not advocating being critical of religions all the time, nor to
> everyone. My point is that if some facet of a religion is ludicrous -
> say, the talking snake in Eden - it's not my problem if I find it
> funny. It's not me who believes it, after all.
> --
> John

People that take the Bible literally are scary. How can you possibly be
functional in the World and say that? They sound like people that are in
psych wards, or should be.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <knl3u5$gt7$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Gus <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>People that take the Bible literally are scary. How can you possibly be
>functional in the World and say that? They sound like people that are in
>psych wards, or should be.

Opus has stated in the past that he does not believe that God has spoken
to anyone directly since New Testament times. Many here, of course, do
not believe that God exists at all. So, when someone claims that God has
spoken to them, are there any explanations other than dishonesty or
insanity?


--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[John Mc.]

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <knl3u5$gt7$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Gus <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> People that take the Bible literally are scary. How can you possibly be
>> functional in the World and say that? They sound like people that are in
>> psych wards, or should be.
>
> Opus has stated in the past that he does not believe that God has spoken
> to anyone directly since New Testament times. Many here, of course, do
> not believe that God exists at all. So, when someone claims that God has
> spoken to them, are there any explanations other than dishonesty or
> insanity?
>

I'm mostly with Opus. To me there's a very finite number of people who've
had these conversations. And I'm damn sure Pat Robertson, Fred Philips and
their ilk are not part of that group.

John Mc.
I'm not either.

[D.F. Manno]

When it comes to cruelty, the religionists are waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the
atheists. When they clean up their act, maybe they'll be treated better.
--
D.F. Manno

[D.F. Manno]

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <knl3u5$gt7$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Gus <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> People that take the Bible literally are scary. How can you possibly be
>> functional in the World and say that? They sound like people that are in
>> psych wards, or should be.
>
> Opus has stated in the past that he does not believe that God has spoken
> to anyone directly since New Testament times. Many here, of course, do
> not believe that God exists at all. So, when someone claims that God has
> spoken to them, are there any explanations other than dishonesty or
> insanity?

Organic brain syndrome.
--
D.F. Manno

[John Mc.]

On 5/23/2013 5:23 PM, Tim wrote:

> Just curious, how did you decide that PR and FP
> are lying or deluded but somebody who lived way in
> the past, who was reported by some writer who
> wasn't there, to have heard direct from the
> invisible ones lips wasn't?
>

I have no problem believing in a higher power. Do I think that every
line in both testaments is "the word of God"? No, in the same vein I
don't believe everything I read on the internet either. (e.g. most of
Shawn's posts) Never have believed the story of the flood or the
creation story in Genesis (other than the first sentence). Doesn't mean
that every line in the Bible is a big, blatant lie either. For that
matter we weren't there at the Battle of Hastings, the Assassination of
Julius Caesar or the Peloponnesian War. All we know is what was written
about them long ago. But we trust these events as HISTORY. Do you
attest that everything written about them is true? Probably not but that
doesn't mean it's utter hogwash either. (What's the saying about
history being written by the victor) "Iacta alea est" is attributed to
Caesar by Suetonius but we only have his word for it. Should we go about
calling Suetonius a liar/fraud? Can't say for certain. OTOH having
seen the actions of PR and FP in the here and now, I have no difficulty
calling them self-serving a**holes.

On an aside, shouldn't Opus be done with Jeopardy by now? Having had a
friend be a Jeopardy champion I know the secrecy they're are sworn to.
But I'd have thought he'd at least say he was done or when it airs. OTOH
maybe he's giving Jennings a run for his money.

John Mc.
Party's on him

[Dover Beach]

"John Mc." <jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote in news:knmive$h6c$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> On an aside, shouldn't Opus be done with Jeopardy by now? Having had a
> friend be a Jeopardy champion I know the secrecy they're are sworn to.
> But I'd have thought he'd at least say he was done or when it airs.
> OTOH maybe he's giving Jennings a run for his money.
>

I emailed him the other day but I haven't heard back.

[John Mc.]

I hope he hit it BIG.

John Mc.

[Alan J Rosenthal]

BillTurlock writes:
>Oops, I need another ass in there.

Go to soc.men, there are plenty of asses there.

[D.F. Manno]

"John Mc." <jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote:

> I have no problem believing in a higher power. Do I think that every line
> in both testaments is "the word of God"? No, in the same vein I don't
> believe everything I read on the internet either. (e.g. most of Shawn's
> posts) Never have believed the story of the flood or the creation story
> in Genesis (other than the first sentence). Doesn't mean that every line
> in the Bible is a big, blatant lie either. For that matter we weren't
> there at the Battle of Hastings, the Assassination of Julius Caesar or
> the Peloponnesian War. All we know is what was written about them long
> ago. But we trust these events as HISTORY. Do you attest that everything
> written about them is true? Probably not but that doesn't mean it's utter
> hogwash either. (What's the saying about history being written by the
> victor) "Iacta alea est" is attributed to Caesar by Suetonius but we only
> have his word for it. Should we go about calling Suetonius a liar/fraud?
> Can't say for certain.

Of course, the difference between history and the Bible/Qur'an/Book of
Mormon/etc. is that history is the story of real-world events for which
there is documentation and witnesses. Holy books are about provably
impossible events for which there were no (or at best unreliable) witnesses
and no (or at best unreliable) documentation.
--
D.F. Manno

[BillTurlock]

On 25 May 2013 01:49:10 GMT, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
wrote:

>BillTurlock writes:
>>Oops, I need another ass in there.
>
>Go to soc.men, there are plenty of asses there.

I, Bill Turlock, chairman of the Non Sequitur Society, am pleased to
announce that I can make no sense of that at all.

[Pastime]

No doubt some of what the Bible records is true - the names of kings
and that stuff being the first thing that comes to mind. But when it
starts describing unicorns and talking bushes, it's pretty clear that
it's not a book to be relied upon without strong supporting evidence.
--
John